Per Curiam: This is an original uncontested proceeding in discipline filed by
the
office of the Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Barry Arbuckle, an
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in June 1971. Arbuckle's last
registration address with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts of Kansas is in Wichita,
Kansas.

The charges in this case arose from a complaint by Robert Scarbro, an over-the-road
trucker who retained Arbuckle to represent him in a dispute with Freightliner
Trucks and the Omaha Truck Center regarding defects in a 2001 Freightliner
tractor/sleeper. In June 2003, Arbuckle filed a petition pursuant to the Consumer
Protection Act in Kansas state court. The defendants subsequently removed the case to
federal court. Thereafter, Arbuckle failed to respond to the defendants' discovery
requests and the defendant's motion to compel discovery. In addition to granting the
defendants' motion for discovery and ordering Arbuckle to comply with the discovery
requests within 10 days, the federal district court ordered Arbuckle to pay $250 in
sanctions. When Arbuckle failed to comply with the federal court's order compelling
discovery and imposing a sanction, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss With
Prejudice. Arbuckle did not respond to the motion, and the federal district court granted
the motion, dismissing Scarbro's petition on March 4, 2004. Arbuckle's motion to set
aside the dismissal was denied. Scarbro filed a complaint with the Disciplinary
Administrator in December 2004.

Arbuckle failed to respond to Scabro's complaint until July 2005. In June 2006,
the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging that
Arbuckle violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.1 (2006 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 358) (competence); KRPC 1.3 (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 371) (diligence); KRPC
1.4 (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 386) (communication); KPRC 3.4 (2006 Kan. Ct. R.
Annot. 472) (fairness to opposing counsel); KRPC 8.1(b) (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 505);
and Supreme Court Rule 207(b) (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 268) (duties of the bar and
judiciary). Arbuckle filed an answer to the formal complaint admitting all of the
allegations in the complaint. The Kansas Board for the Discipline of Attorneys held a
hearing on September 21, 2006, and Arbuckle appeared in person and with counsel. At
the hearing, Arbuckle stipulated to violating KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC
3.4, KRPC 8.1(b), and Supreme Court Rule 207(b). Arbuckle presented evidence in
mitigation, but the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator presented no evidence in
aggravation. At the time of the hearing, Arbuckle had not paid the $250 sanction ordered
by the federal district court.

The hearing panel unanimously concluded that Arbuckle violated KPRC 1.1,
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 3.4, KRPC 8.1, and Supreme Court Rule 207(b) and recommended
that Arbuckle be censured and the censure be published in the Kansas Reports. Arbuckle
did not file any exceptions to the final hearing report.

The hearing panel made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"The Hearing Panel finds the following facts, by clear and
convincing evidence:

"1. Barry L. Arbuckle (hereinafter 'the Respondent') is an
attorney at law . . . . His last registration address with the Clerk of the
Appellate Courts of Kansas is . . . Wichita, Kansas . . . . The Respondent
was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas on June 24, 1971.

"2. Robert W. Scarbro is an over the road long haul truck driver.
Mr. Scarbro developed a dispute with Freightliner Trucks and Omaha
Truck Center (hereinafter 'the defendants') regarding his truck.

"3. In February, 2003, Mr. Scarbro retained the Respondent to
file suit against the defendants. At that time, Mr. Scarbro paid the
Respondent a $2,000 advance fee.

"4. In March, 2003, the Respondent reduced the fee agreement to
writing. The Respondent acknowledged the $2,000 advance fee and
indicated that the fee would be earned at a rate of $150.00 per hour.
Finally, the Respondent stated that the maximum fee would be 1/3 of any
settlement.

"5. On June 6, 2003, the Respondent filed suit in behalf of Mr.
Scarbro in the Shawnee County District Court. Then, on July 10, 2003, the
defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas.

"6. On September 23, 2003, the Court held a scheduling
conference. The Court included the following deadlines in the scheduling
order. On September 26, 2003, the Rule 26 disclosures were due. On
December 15, 2003, the preliminary disclosure of witnesses and exhibits
were due. Discovery was to be completed by January 31, 2004. The
pretrial conference was scheduled for February 18, 2004. On March 5,
2004, dispositive motions were due. The Court scheduled trial for July 6,
2004.

"7. On October 17, 2003, the defendants served discovery
requests on the Respondent. The responses to the discovery requests were
due November 19, 2003. The Respondent failed to provide the requested
discovery.

"8. On November 25, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to
compel discovery. The Respondent failed to respond to the motion to
compel.

"9. The Respondent failed to provide the preliminary disclosure
of witnesses and exhibits by December 15, 2003, as required by the Court.

"10. On December 16, 2003, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to compel, sanctioned the Respondent, and ordered the Respondent
to comply with the discovery requests within 10 days. The Respondent
failed to comply with the discovery requests within 10 days as ordered by
the Court.

"11. Because the Respondent failed to provide the preliminary
disclosure of witnesses and exhibits and because the Respondent failed to
comply with the Court's order to compel discovery, on January 6, 2004, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Respondent did
not respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

"12. On March 4, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss with prejudice.

"13. On April 6, 2004, the Respondent filed a motion to set aside
the order of dismissal. On April 12, 2004, the defendants filed a
memorandum in opposition to the Respondent's motion. Thereafter, on
June 4, 2004, the Court denied the Respondent's motion.

"14. In December, 2004, Mr. Scarbro filed a complaint with the
Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. On January 7, 2005, Mr.
Walczak wrote to the Respondent. In the letter, Mr. Walczak directed the
Respondent to provide a written response to the complaint within 20 days.
The Respondent failed to provide a written response to the complaint
within 20 days. Eventually, on July 19, 2005, the Respondent provided a
written response to the complaint.

"15. As of the date of the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the
Respondent had not paid the sanctions as ordered by the Court nor had the
Respondent offered to compensate Mr. Scarbro for his loss of cause of
action.

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes
as a matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1, KRPC 1.3,
KRPC 1.4, KRPC 3.4, KRPC 8.1(b), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b), as
detailed below.

"2. Lawyers must provide competent representation to their
clients. KRPC 1.1. 'Competent representation requires the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for
the representation.' The Respondent did not represent Mr. Scarbro with
thoroughness and with reasonable preparation. Accordingly, the Hearing
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.1.

"3. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. In this case, the Respondent
failed to provide diligent representation to Mr. Scarbro when he failed to
take any action during discovery and when he allowed Mr. Scarbro's cause
of action to be dismissed. Because the Respondent failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing Mr. Scarbro, the
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3.

"4. KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with
reasonable requests for information.' In this case, the Respondent violated
KRPC 1.4(a) when he failed to adequately communicate with Mr. Scarbro.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated
KRPC 1.4(a).

'(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of
a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion
that no valid obligation exists;

'(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery
request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply
with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.'

In this case, the Respondent repeatedly disobeyed the court's orders,
including the order to comply with discovery and the order to pay
sanctions. Further, as late as the date of the hearing on the Formal
Complaint, the Respondent had not paid the sanctions that were ordered on
December 16, 2003. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent violated KRPC 3.4.

'It shall be the duty of each member of the bar of this
state to aid the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board, and
the Disciplinary Administrator in investigations concerning
complaints of misconduct, and to communicate to the
Disciplinary Administrator any information he or she may
have affecting such matters.' Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).

The Respondent knew that he was required to forward a written response to the initial
complaint. Because the Respondent knowingly failed to provide a timely written
response to the initial complaint filed by Mr. Scarbro, the Hearing Panel concludes that
the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).

"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards').
Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty violated,
the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the
lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating
factors. "Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his
client to provide competent and diligent representation. Additionally, the
Respondent violated his duty to his client to provide adequate
communication. The Respondent also violated his duty to the legal system
to comply with orders of the court. Finally, the Respondent violated his
duty to the legal profession to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.

"Mental State. The Respondent negligently and knowingly violated
his duties.

"Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the
Respondent caused actual injury to Mr. Scarbro.

"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are
any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of
discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline,
the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following aggravating factors
present:

"Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct in this case by repeatedly ignoring the Court's orders.

"Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law. The Kansas
Supreme Court admitted the Respondent to practice law in 1971. At the
time the Respondent engaged in misconduct, the Respondent had been
practicing law for a period of 35 years. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent had substantial experience in the practice of
law at the time he engaged in the misconduct.

"Indifference to Making Restitution. To date, the Respondent has
made no effort to pay the sanctions ordered by the Court or to compensate
Mr. Scarbro for his loss of cause of action.

"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its
recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the
following mitigating circumstances present:

"Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not
previously been disciplined.

"Absence of a Dishonest or Selfish Motive. Dishonesty and
selfishness were not motivating factors in this case.

"Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community
Including any Letters from Clients, Friends, and Lawyers in Support of the
Character and General Reputation of the Attorney. The Respondent is an
active and productive member of the bar in Wichita, Kansas. He enjoys the
respect of his peers and clients and generally possesses a good character
and reputation.

"Remorse. At the hearing on the Formal Complaint, the Respondent
expressed genuine remorse.

"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has
thoroughly examined and considered the following Standards:

'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a
lawyer is negligent and does not act with
reasonable diligence in representing a client,
and causes injury or potential injury to a client.'
Standard 4.43.

'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a
lawyer negligently fails to provide a client with
accurate or complete information, and causes
injury or potential injury to the client.' Standard
4.63.

'Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly violates a court order or rule, and
there is injury or potential injury to a client or a
party, or interference or potential interference
with a legal proceeding.' Standard 6.22.

'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a
lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court
order or rule, and causes injury or potential
injury to a client or other party, or causes
interference or potential interference with a
legal proceeding.' Standard 6.23.

'Reprimand is generally appropriate when a
lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a
violation of a duty owed to the profession, and
causes injury or potential injury to a client, the
public, or the legal system.' Standard 7.3.

"RECOMMENDATION

"The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator and Counsel for
Respondent recommended that the Respondent be censured and that the
censure be published in the Kansas Reports.

"Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
Standards listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that
the Respondent be censured by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Hearing
Panel further recommends that the censure be published in the Kansas
Reports. The Hearing Panel also urges the Respondent pay the sanctions
and provide evidence that the sanctions have been paid to Mr. Walczak,
within 30 days of the date of this report. Finally, the Hearing Panel
recommends that the Respondent immediately obtain professional liability
insurance."

In a disciplinary proceeding, we consider the evidence, the findings of the
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties to determine whether the respondent
violated the KPRC and what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct must
be established by substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. In re
Landrith, 280 Kan. 619, 636, 124 P.3d 467 (2005); Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2006
Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 284) (misconduct to be established by clear and convincing
evidence).

We conclude that the hearing panel's findings of fact are supported by clear and
convincing evidence and support the panel's conclusions of law, and we adopt the same.
We note that Arbuckle admitted to the violations and agreed with the discipline
recommended by the Disciplinary Administrator and the hearing panel. Arbuckle also
conceded at oral argument that he would reimburse Mr. Scarbro for the $2,000 advance
fee that was paid. Based on Arbuckle's admission to the violations, agreement with the
recommended discipline, and concession regarding the reimbursement of the attorney
fees, we accept the panel's recommended discipline of published censure as the
appropriate discipline. A minority of this court would find the failure to reimburse the
$2,000 advance fee would result in further disciplinary action.